I don't think it is a matter of 'relativity'. It would be accurate to say that at this point only the Army is aware of the extent of civilian casualties, and on that count see my post here:
Zakaria cannot have better information than Pakistani journalists on the ground (or as close as they can get), and most Pakistani and Western journalists taken on tours of Swat recently have expressed surprise at the lack of damage (my guess is they were expecting something along the lines of what Zakaria is blabbing about).
Zakaria is therefore playing armchair general without any idea of what the facts on the ground are, an insted of admitting that he really has no clue as to the extent of civilian casualties and damage, he chose to 'guesstimate' and bash Pakistani tactics.
This puts his credibility in doubt IMO.
That's a good analysis of the quandary faced by Pakistan - IMO Pakistan wants to see a long term US commitment to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and some of its other security concerns vis a vis India addressed before moving completely into the US camp.
The 'with us or against us' is moot at this point - if it could have been used it would have been. If the US plans on abandoning Afghanistan then it does not matter. However if the US wants to stay in the region to ensure that no safe havens for AQ remain, then it is stuck with working with Pakistan. The US cannot invade or attack Pakistan because that would seriously destabilize the country, and end up strengthening the Taliban and AQ, which is exactly what it wants to avoid. Pakistan is also not about to say 'we are not with the US', but it has been saying 'we are partially with the US' for a while now. The US is therefore essentially stuck with working with Pakistan and attempting to convince it to go from 'partially support' to 'completely support' through a mixture of economic incentives and addressing Pakistani security concerns with back channel negotiations with the GoI, GoA, and GoP.
You are correct that Zakaria did attempt to address Pakistani concerns by suggesting that Pakistan was worried over Afghanistan becoming a client State of India, but that is a far cry from pointing out that Pakistan is concerned about India destabilizing Pakistan through support for proxy groups.
Without addressing those concerns specifically, he trivializes Pakistani concerns, and in addition by referring to Pakistan 'using militants to destabilize Afghanistan and India' he really skews the discourse against Pakistan, since even India's attempt at making Afghanistan a 'client state' would now be interpreted as a reaction to 'Pakistan using militants to destabilize Afghanistan and India'.
This is not the only occasion he has been deceitful - a few days after Musharraf's interview when he clearly debunked the $10 billion aid myth (pointing out that more than half was in the form of reimbursements), he was on Anderson Cooper talking about the Swat Operation, and he laughed about how 'money was fungible' and implied that the Pakistani argument was not valid because its all too complicated or some such thing.
He blatantly avoided specifically addressing the argument raised by Pakistanis over the $10 billion aid, in order to perpetuate the prevalent distorted view.
Sorry, but the few times I have watched him on Pakistan, he has been less than honest. That does not make him a 'zionist mouthpiece', but it does make him a poor analyst and commentator.
